This argument stated that all contingent things can be explained by another contingent thing, which in turn, is explained by another contingent thing. The final conclusion of the cosmological argument is that there has to be a first-cause to the things that happen, and that first cause we call God.
Ontological Argument.
Although there are many versions of the ontological argument, the basic characteristic of the ontological argument is that it derives the actuality of God through mere concept, or definition of God. Kurtz (1991) provides an example of the Ontological Argument:.
a) "I have an idea of "a being of which none greater can be conceived".
b) If I submit this idea into analysis, I find that existence must be part of its essential meaning.
c) If by reduction ad absurdum, I assume that he does not exist, then he would not be "a being of which none greater can be conceived".
d) For if he does not exist, then his greatness would be diminished.
e) Therefore, the idea of God necessarily entails his existence" (p.312).
There are many objections to this argument, since it can be used to argue the existence of anything (ie. Easter Bunny), ontologists respond by just stating that this argument can only be used for demonstrating the existence of God. This is because "existence is essential to our very understanding of our concept of God" (Kurtz, 1991). Even with this assertion, critics still claim that this argument can be used for many other concepts besides the existence of God (Kurtz, 1991); also claiming that existence is not a property of a being. Recently ontologists have responded to this statement by agreeing that existence is not a property, but adding that God's existence is "necessary existence". Thus, if two objects exist, one necessary and the other not, the first is greater than the second (Peterson et al., 1998). .
Inductive Teleological.
To demonstrate the teleological argument, Peterson, et al.